Friday, October 29, 2004

Yet another election season is upon us, and through it, Americans hope to play a part in influencing the course of this great nation. But despite the solemnity of the decision facing the country, neither of the two main parties will do much in stemming the downward moral spiral griping the United States.

In enunciating his position on gay marriage, Vice President Dick Cheney has said people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want.

Really? Does that mean, if I can find a dozen women amicable to the arrangement, that I can form a harem that caters to my every whim, allowing me to lead a life of luxury since such a situation would allow me to sit back and send a number out to work, a number to tend house, and a number to shower affection on when in the mood.

If our base desires now constitute the basis of our connubial ethics, whose to say such an arrangement is illegitimate so long as no parties are coerced into it? After all, Cheney did say “any kind of relationship they want.” Seems polygamy makes much more sense than homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint if we are going to descend to the level of common beasts.

But we are not common beasts. Though a part of creation, we have also been set apart and above it by being made in the image of God. As such, He is the one --- not our individual libidos --- that determines the moral parameters in which humans are suppose to live.

Both Scripture and common sense reveal that the well being of the greatest number of human beings is maximized when marriage is limited between one man and one woman rather than allowing helter skelter to take place at the marriage altar between any combination in any number. When we refuse to acknowledge these limits, we literally invite all hell to break lose.

The end result goes beyond social confusion and emotionally shattered lives. In fact, innocent people end up losing their rights and even their lives.

In addressing the issue of abortion brought up during the debates, John Kerry --- in a classic display of his famed forked tongue --- in effect said that, while he thought abortion was wrong, it would be unconscionable to impose his own views upon anyone else. But what is law but the codification of someone else’s morality we are forced to live by?

Attempting to delude Catholic and Evangelical voters, Kerry admits the unborn are alive but refuses to lift a finger on their behalf since such a belief is religious in origin. Thus, since even the safety and well being of innocent human beings are not sufficient grounds to impose your morals on someone else, on what grounds can you then bring the sanction of law against a restaurateur for refusing to serve Black customers? After all, this also comes down to a matter of belief: whether or not all men are created equal. Besides, the customer discriminated against certainly isn’t suffering to the same extent as the hacked-apart fetus.

Abraham Lincoln did not win his place in America’s pantheon of historical greats by enunciating, “I believe slavery is wrong, but who am I to impose my conception of emancipation on those not sharing it?” It would be interesting to see if someone as vacillating as John Kerry would handle the greatest moral quandary of another era in the same manner as he does that of our own.

It would be unreasonable to expect any candidate to single handedly reverse America’s ongoing moral decline since the origins of the crisis go beyond anything the political process is able of resolving completely. However, it does not bode well for this great nation when those seeking to serve as its foremost custodians lack the will to do the simplest things within the scope of legitimate governmental authority to stand against the tide of desolation sweeping across this great land.

Friday, October 22, 2004

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Often libertarians and conservatives studying the decline of liberty throughout the West speak of an elite that rules over the masses with an iron hand while ignoring the regulations they impose upon the rest of us lower down the social ladder that they hold in contempt. This conclusion is usually drawn by comparing what the snobs in positions of leadership expect from the rest of us and the lax manner in which they themselves live.

Usually, analysts of our contemporary situation have to wait awhile from the time a member of the overclass makes a proclamation and the evidence of their hypocrisy bubbles up to the light of day. However, it seems this election season political observers won’t have to travel far or wait long to see this social dynamic in operation in relation to Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Possibly even more so than Hillary Clinton, Teresa Heinz Kerry is coming to epitomize the contempt those in the highest positions of power exhibit towards Americans and the American way of life. At least with this harpy coming to the forefront of the news cycle, quasi-apathetic Americans have no excuse about not knowing what’s in store for them should Teresa’s attitude continue to prevail throughout policy and government in terms of curtailing the way in which Americans will be allowed to express themselves and in the very way in which they will be allowed to live their lives.

In addressing the Pennsylvania delegation to the the Democratic Convention , Teresa called for a return of civility to American politics by pointing out the “un-Pennsylvanian” and “un-American” tendencies creeping into the nation’s electoral process. Usually when a liberal brings up civility it is little more than a warning that conservatives had better stop daring to criticize and question what the overclass has in store for American society.

For if Teresa was really concerned about propriety and decorum, she would not have stood up for war protestors as noble patriots. When she did, I don’t imagine she was referring to principled conservatives and libertarians opposed to the current foreign policy undertakings but rather to the grubby street agitators that threatened to disrupt the Republican Convention and even plotted to toss marbles onto the path of police horses in an attempt to injure both riders and mounts.

But perhaps of greater significance were her comments following the speech clarifying her conception of civility and the role it is to play in public life. When pressed by a reporter as to what she meant by “un-Pennsylvanian” and “un-American” she responded, “Now shove it.”

Such a statement is a perfect example of the new civility called for by the likes of Teresa and others of the “don’t do as I do, do as I say” mindset. Apparently these standards are to be imposed upon journalists who have forgotten their place but not the ruling elite or its henchmen.

Not surprisingly, many of Teresa’s compatriots have expressed similar sentiments in even more robust words, serving as shining examples of postmodernist civility to lesser minds such as ourselves incapable of such lofty forms of ratiocination. Colin McNickle, the journalist who brought this brouhaha to light in the August 1, 2004 edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune, catalogued many of the civil and uplifting comments that have been made about him and directed at him.

According to McNickle, coming to the aide of Her Royal Heinzness, Patti Labelle said McNickle should be “pimp-slapped”. That pinnacle of good taste and even better grooming, Michael Moore called McNickle “rude”.

As equally rotund Jack Germond said McNickle was not a legitimate newspaperman; since when do the canons of good journalism stifle curiosity and promote timidity? I think Germond’s chronically tight collars have finally cut off circulation to his brain.

Liberals that feign concern over the diminishing levels of propriety and manners allegedly characterizing contemporary political exchange go out of their way to publicize and wallow in incidents where alleged “Conservatives” comported themselves in a less than reputable manner. One only hopes they will put as much effort into condemning their own ideological kinsman for making lewd calls to the McNickle home and even logging death threats against this champion of journalistic integrity.

The double standard through which the elite imposes their will upon the rest of us extends beyond the lofty concerns of public discussion to the more mundane ones of everyday existence; that’s why there’s “total” in “totalitarianism”. For in expressing her position regarding SUV’s, the Ketchup Queen reveals that her life is considerably more important than cretins like you and me.

Groups funded by her foundation lament the American fascination with reliable, quality automobiles as epitomized by sport utility vehicles and go on about the evils of this mode of transportation as well as why good citizens ought to give them up. Unless, of course, you happen to number among the idle rich paying to impose such nonsense upon the masses.

The rest of us are to endanger our lives driving shoddy automobiles or be herded around like livestock in cattle cars on public transportation, Teresa thinks her life is so much more valuable, noting her safety comes first since she lost four family members in traffic accidents. So since I lost an uncle in a car wreck, does that mean I am entitled to an SUV? Probably not. Those buying into Teresa’s worldview see such tragedies befalling the lower orders of man as merely a trimming of the excess population.

Interestingly, Heinz uses her SUV for more than trips to Bloomingdale’s or wherever else the opulently wealthy like to spend their money these days. She also uses this environmental despoiler to drive in snow and sand at her multiple homes.

For you, on the other hand, Heinz’s elites are planning a so-called “sustainable” future where, unlike the Kerrys with their multiple estates, it’s doubtful you’ll even be allowed to own what we now know as a single-family house with a yard. Instead, those of us in the lower to middle echelons of society will be corralled into planned, high density communal dormitories. And forget about driving on sand: in all likelihood, you won’t even be allowed to set foot on a beach or any other part of nature where they plan to tear out the roads and designate as protected natural areas.

Most of the time, as in the case of the Clintons, evil seduces through subtle charm and beguiling doubletalk; however, in the case of the Heinz Hag and her henpecked hubby, this witch does little to hide her true intentions. If voters fall for this duo, those exercising their suffrage in such a manner will be getting exactly what they deserve.

Often the sincere piety and religious devotion of Southerners is worthy of admiration, but methinks too much stink is being made down south about Halloween falling on a Sunday.

On the one hand you have spook-day purists insisting what an affront it would be to move the celebration back to Saturday evening, which has often been the tradition when Halloween fell on a Sunday.

However, even those wanting the festival moved back to the 30th are enough to strain my sympathies for my fellow coreligionists.

Contrary to the tone of the Christians interviewed in the article, the Seals of the Apocalypse are not going to be broken just because a few kids go Trick-Or-Treating on a Sunday evening.

One distraught woman over exaggerated in the story, "You just don't do it on Sunday. That's Christ's day. You go to church on Sunday, you don't go out and celebrate the devil. That'll confuse a child."

Lady, you are not in church all day long. Bet these same hayseeds making such a big deal about the "Sabbath", which is technically Saturday anyway, don't have much of a problem going to Wal-Mart or watching football on the day under consideration here.

If your kid is thrown off the straight and narrow that easily, you have more serious problems on your hand. As Gretchin Passantino of Answers In Action said on a recent Bible Answer Man broadcast tackling the Halloween controversy, Trick-Or-Treating won't make you a Satanist anymore than opening a Christmas present makes you a Christian. Like many other of life's activities, this one merely takes on the meaning we put into it.

The article detailing the Saturday vs. Sunday dispute went on to offer a very pro-market solution that allows everyone to win without having to call upon government for a solution. Those who want to, can go out on Saturday night. Those who prefer Sunday, can go out on Sunday. And to those enterprising young capitalists who don't have a preference, the can easily go out on both.

Chuck Pardee, editor of Newsbull.com, offers an interesting solution for those Christians and Churches torn between their sense of patriotism and Biblical obligation of putting God first in their lives as embodied by the debate as to whether an American flag belongs in our houses of worship.

The issue arises over a little known law requiring the U.S. flag be given the place of superiority over that of the Christian flag, thus potentially making the line of authority being country then God. His proposal would correct this potentially troubling oversite by rectifying the chain of authority back to God, then country.

His suggestion is worth consideration since it would satisfy both those Christians who don't have a problem with placing an American flag in their respective houses of worship while addressing the concerns of appearing to place the authority of government over God, something Christians will no doubt have to cotend with more and more as our society continues its downward spiral from its Judeo-Christian foundations.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Over the past several years at the start of each new school year, I have written columns detailing the policies of a number of school systems where educators confiscate the school supplies of students in order to redistribute them along more communal lines as classroom administrators see fit.

Noting fewer and fewer signs of the practice in school supply lists at Wal-Mart, I figured either school officials had come to their senses by returning to a more individualistic approach to scholastic resource management, had grown tired of parents spurred on in part by my columns griping about this glorified form of socialism, or even worse, not informed parents of the crime before hand and quietly pilfered the goods from unsuspecting children unprepared to muster the courage necessary to defy teachers overstepping the bounds of their authority.

An email from my cousin confirmed my fears, prompting me to address this issue yet again and to bring to the attention of the reading public disturbing developments regarding this issue.

In her communication, my cousin notified me of the customary confiscation decree and of her frustration at being told its her responsibility to provide for everyone else’s offspring as well as her own. But beyond the tragedy of the common workingman being browbeaten and shamed into alleviating the plight of the willfully indolent and just plain lazy was her revelation that funds raised in relation to this nonsense might not be being spent in the most prudent of manners.

Instead of having to endure hectic back to school sales in pursuit of classroom paraphernalia, parents could have surrendered $30.00 per child to endow educators to acquire the needed supplies. Instead of falling for this wily plea, my cousin decided to obtain the scholastic accoutrements on her own.

Much to her surprise, her grand total came to $35.00. The shock did not stem from the total exceeding the figure tabulated by the school system but from the fact she was buying for three children.

According to school system documentation, her shopping excursion should have cost her $90.00. It doesn’t take an Ivy League PhD or Philadelphia lawyer to see that these degreed, credentialed, and certified educators apparently can’t do simple arithmetic.

Those not having their skills of critical analysis dulled through over-exposure to public schools are left asking that, if parents can outfit their children for around twelve bucks apiece, what in the name of John Dewey is being done with the rest of the money? Either schools are getting hosed on school supply prices or its going for purposes other than those spelled out for parents in the memo to parents such as caviar (or at least pizza) in the teachers’ lounge.

Usually soliciting money for one reason and using it for another is called fraud. In reference to the private sector, this constitutes criminal activity; when committed by certain government agencies venerated by social engineers such as public schools, it becomes a civic duty to turn our heads the other way and keep our mouths shut.

This farce is buttressed through the invocation of a number of arguments designed to titillate the seeds of collectivism strategically planted in the modern psyche. Those still bold enough to think for themselves in such matters daring to voice misgivings about such compulsory altruism are shamed by the powers that be with sob stories of how little school children will be denied an education should greedy citizens refuse to fulfill their civic obligation of outfitting every single whelp in their own child’s class.

Such a claim in support of redistribution is about as faulty as the philosophical assumptions upon which these policies rest. Those snatching paper and pencils from one student to put in the hands of another in order to bask in the ecstasy that results from exercising arbitrary power over others assert these confiscatory policies are necessary since the so-called “underprivileged” can’t afford classroom necessities.

Is that so? Of Black ghetto culture, Bill Cosby remarked how the same parents complaining about the price of Hooked On Phonics have little problem with buying $200 basketball shows for their rugrats. Likewise, if those living in welfare apartments and trailer parks can afford tattoos, gold teeth, and Nintendo sets, surely they can afford a pack of notebook paper for under a dollar and a pack of pencils for around the same price if they shop at Wal-Mart.

If things are that bad financially around the house, kids can scrounge around for secondhand stationary or freebies foraged from county fairs, fire department open houses, and other assorted municipal festivals. Contrary to the propaganda of the classroom Communists, children will not be irrevocably stunted if forced to use last year’s notebook or pencil box; their development will be, however, if they come away with the impression it is their right to have the nicest possessions whether they have earned them or not.

The discrepancies between what my cousin paid and the amount demanded by Calvert County school officials speaks to one of those fundamental socioeconomic truths radical educators simply refuse to learn: that, of course, being that individuals and families are eminently more qualified to determine the proper distribution and allocation of resources than any petty bureaucrat or dimwitted schoolmarm. This is because, unlike the professional educator, the parent not only loves the child but must provide for the offspring from the family’s own limited income. Educrats, on the other hand, have access to what these misguided statists misperceive as the inexhaustible revenue source of public tax funds, which they do not have much compunction to spend with the same care and prudence as the average mother.

Obviously, my cousin isn’t the only one disturbed by these blatantly socialistic policies even if they cannot put their finger on these as such since such outright theft is an affront to commonsense and the natural order. When my cousin enunciated her surprise at the disparity in costs and the manner in which the supplies were to be divied up, the cashier was nearly as disgusted as my cousin. Perhaps it’s about time parents and concerned citizens taught educators just who the students belong to and who it is that really supplies the needs of these pupils.

Saturday, October 02, 2004

It was reported on CNN's "Crossfire" that correspondent Bob Novak broke his hip and would need to have it replaced.

According to Broadcasting & Cable, he did this in the shower in his hotel room in Miami. He was there in Florida to cover the Presidential debate.

His leftist counterpart, Clinton stooge Paul Begala, made a snide comment that instead of flowers donations could be made to alleviate capital gains taxes. Too bad it wasn't Begala who injured himself instead.